Ross v. Jenkins et al

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 37 Motion to Redact Transcript. Signed by District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree on 4/25/18. Mailed to all defendants by regular mail. (kao)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

KENDRA ROSS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 17-2547-DDC-TJJ
v.
ROYALL JENKINS, et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Kendra Ross asks the court to redact portions of the transcript of the February 2,
2018 hearing conducted on plaintiff’s default judgment motion. Doc. 37. None of the
defendants have responded to plaintiff’s request, and the time to do so has passed. See D. Kan.
Rule 6.1(d)(1) (“Responses to non-dispositive motions (motions other than motions to dismiss,
motions for summary judgment, motions to remand, or motions for judgment on the pleadings)
must be filed and served within 14 days.”); see also Doc. 37 (showing plaintiff filed her Motion
to Redact Transcript on March 30, 2018).
This case arises from plaintiff’s allegations that defendants committed many atrocities
against her, including human trafficking and forced labor. According to her allegations and
testimony at the February 2, 2018 hearing, plaintiff escaped from this treatment when she was 21
years old—after more than a decade of abuse. Throughout this case, plaintiff has taken actions
to keep her location confidential. These actions include keeping her therapist’s name
confidential. She says she takes these actions—i.e., requesting to redact her therapist’s name
from the February 2, 2018 hearing transcript—to ensure that she can “continue treatment and
healing without further abuse or harassment at the hands of Defendants.” Doc. 37 at 3.

The Supreme Court has recognized the American public’s “general right to inspect and
copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner
Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). But the right to inspect and copy judicial records is
not absolute. Id. “All courts have supervisory powers over their own records and files.” United
States v. Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1985) (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Thus, a
court, in its discretion, may redact a transcript “if the public’s right of access is outweighed by
competing interests.” Id. (citation omitted).
Here, the public’s right to access plaintiff’s location or her therapist’s name is
significantly outweighed by plaintiff’s right to be free from abuse and harassment by defendants.
Also, the restrictions sought by plaintiff’s motion are minimal. It asks the court to redact—
partially—just 11 lines from a 50-page transcript.
Plaintiff’s motion complies with the standards adopted in Nixon and Hickey. The court
thus grants this motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiff’s Motion to
Redact Transcript (Doc. 37) is granted. Court Reporter Kim Greiner is ordered to redact
plaintiff’s therapist’s name from the following lines of the February 2, 2018 hearing transcript
(Doc. 35): 2:5; 15:9; 33:22, 24; 34:1, 9–11; 37:7; 42:20; and 43:19.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 25th day of April, 2018, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge

2